This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 30 April 2013, At: 15:47Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Natural HistoryPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnah20

Status of the family-group names ofArachnida first published in BandI, Abtheilung 1 of Berendt's Die imBernstein befindlichen organischenReste der Vorwelt (1845)Mark L.I. Judson aa Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, DépartementSystématique et Évolution, CNRS UMR 7205, 57 rue Cuvier, C.P.53, 75005, Paris, FrancePublished online: 10 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Mark L.I. Judson (2012): Status of the family-group names of Arachnida firstpublished in Band I, Abtheilung 1 of Berendt's Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste derVorwelt (1845), Journal of Natural History, 46:19-20, 1273-1282

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2012.654516

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Natural HistoryVol. 46, Nos. 19–20, May 2012, 1273–1282

Status of the family-group names of Arachnida first published in Band I,Abtheilung 1 of Berendt’s Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischenReste der Vorwelt (1845)

Mark L.I. Judson*

Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Département Systématique et Évolution, CNRS UMR7205, 57 rue Cuvier, C.P. 53, 75005 Paris, France

(Received 10 October 2011; final version received 2 January 2012; printed 12 April 2012)

The status of the arachnid names published in Berendt’s 1845 work Die imBernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt (Band I, Abtheilung 1) isreassessed. All of the new generic and specific names introduced there are nominanuda. However, the family names Eresidae (Araneae), Eriodontidae (Araneae),Mithraeidae (Araneae) and Sarcoptidae (Acari: Actinotrichida) were all validlyproposed and should be attributed to C.L. Koch in Berendt (1845). Two of thesefamily names are currently in use: Eresidae C.L. Koch in Berendt (1845) (previouslyattributed to C.L. Koch, 1851) and Sarcoptidae C.L. Koch in Berendt (1845) (pre-viously attributed to Murray, 1877), along with the coordinate superfamily namesEresoidea C.L. Koch in Berendt (1845) and Sarcoptoidea C.L. Koch in Berendt(1845).

Keywords: Arachnida; nomenclature; authorship; publication dates

Introduction

During the past few years a number of papers on Arachnida in Baltic amber (Marusikand Penney 2005; Ubick and Dunlop 2005; Dunlop 2006, 2007; Harms and Dunlop2009; Sidorchuk and Klimov 2011; Dunlop, Penney, Dalüge et al. 2011) have referredto an article supposedly published by G.C. Berendt in the volume of the NeuesJahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde for the year1845. Most of these citations concern generic and specific nomina nuda of Opilionesand Araneae, which were later validly described by Koch and Berendt (1854), butSidorchuk and Klimov (2011) argued that the Neues Jahrbuch article contains the firstvalid use of the family-group name Sarcoptidae, contrary to previous attributions ofthis name to Murray (1877) or, less frequently, to Sundevall (1833). However, all of therecent authors cited above have misinterpreted the nature of the Neues Jahrbuch publi-cation. Rather than being an original article, it is an extended summary (Auszüg) of thefirst part of volume I of Berendt’s (1845) famous work Die im Bernstein befindlichenorganischen Reste der Vorwelt. Although this summary appeared in the Jahrbuch for1845, it must post-date Berendt’s work (published in June 1845: see Evenhuis 1997),perhaps having been published in early 18461. Authorship of the summary is not indi-cated in the original publication, but Sherborn (1923) and Strand (1928) attribute it

*Email: judson@mnhn.fr

ISSN 0022-2933 print/ISSN 1464-5262 online© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2012.654516http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

1274 M.L.I. Judson

to Leonhard and Bronn, who were the joint editors of the Jahrbuch. It is more likelythat it was written by H. G. Bronn alone (K. C. von Leonhard was primarily a min-eralogist), but in the absence of any clear indication of authorship, it is cited here asAnonymous (1846).

The table of taxa given by Anonymous (1846, pp. 871–876) is of interest becauseit includes many names that were not published in Berendt (1845). Anonymous (1846,p. 871, footnote) explains that the part of the table covering Arachnida, Crustacea,Myriapoda and Aptera was based on information from an “Übersichts-Blatte zum IIHefte” (i.e. a summary sheet of the then-unpublished second part of Die im Bernsteinbefindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt) provided by Berendt (“Hrn. Vf.”). Thissummary was more complete than that given for the same groups in Berendt (1845,p. 56), which only listed genera. The “Übersichts-Blatte” seems to have been widelycirculated because Pictet (1854, footnotes on p. 405 and 408) and Bronn (1856, foot-note on p. 628) mention a loose sheet that was distributed with the first part of thevolume (i.e. Berendt 1845), which Bronn (1856) identifies with the Übersichts-Blatteused to draw up part of the table in Anonymous (1846). This sheet (which I have notseen) would have resembled pages 5–6 of the “Systematische Uebersicht” of Koch andBerendt (1854).

Because Berendt (1845) and Anonymous (1846) did not provide descriptions(except for the family Archaeidae: see below), and because none of the new gen-era included valid species, all of the new generic and specific names of Arachnidaintroduced in these publications are nomina nuda. The same does not necessarilyapply, however, to the names of families, five of which were employed for the firsttime in Berendt (1845): Sarcoptidae in Acari; Archaeidae (as “Archäidae”), Eresidae(as “Erisidae”), Eriodontidae and Mithraeidae (as “Mithracidae”) in Araneae. Thesenames were also listed in Anonymous (1846), with Archaeidae and Eresidae spelt cor-rectly. As argued here, these family names are validly proposed in Berendt (1845),except for Archaeidae.

Authorship of genera and families is not explicitly indicated by Berendt (1845), butin footnote 2 on page 55 concerning the list of names he states that “Die Uebersicht. . . der Arachniden [ist] aus Koch’s systematischen Bestimmungen meiner Insektenzusammengestellt” (“The summary . . . of the Arachnida is from Koch’s systematicidentifications of my insect collection”). Similarly, the taxa are attributed to C.L. Koch(“n[ach] Koch”) in the table published in Anonymous (1846, p. 871). Although newnames of species are attributed to Koch and Berendt (“Koch & Ber.”) in the text ofBerendt (1845, pp. 52, 59 and 60), it is unlikely that Berendt was involved in the deci-sions to create family-group names. It therefore seems reasonable to treat C.L. Kochas the sole author of the family-group names proposed in Berendt (1845). The sameconclusion seems to have been reached by Bronn et al. (1855, p. 592), who attributethe families to Koch, except for the Archaeidae, which they attribute to Koch andBerendt.

The implications of recognizing various family-group names as validly publishedin Berendt (1845) are considered below for each case, in accordance with the cur-rent (fourth) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999),hereafter abbreviated to “Code”.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

Journal of Natural History 1275

Order ARANEAEFamily ACTINOPODIDAE Simon, 1892 [1889]

Eriodontidae C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845, pp. 56 (table), 59; C.L. Koch in Anonymous,1846, p. 872 (table); Koch & Berendt, 1854, pp. 3 [as Eriodontiden], 6 (table), 69;Menge in Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 7 (table). Rejected name, based on genericsynonym.

Pachyloscelinae Simon, 1889, p. 174. Rejected name, based on generic synonym.Actinopodinae Simon, 1892, p. 78–79. Replacement name for Pachyloscelinae Simon,

1889.

Type genus of Eriodontidae. Eriodon Latreille, 1806.

Bonnet (1956) cited the earlier use of Eriodontidae in Berendt (1845), but consid-ered this to be a nomen nudum, arguing that because the name Eriodontidae hadbeen “created for” Sosybius Koch & Berendt, 1854 by Koch & Berendt (1854), itshould be interpreted as a synonym of Clubionidae Wagner, 1887: “La famille desEriodontidae ayant été créée pour le genre Sosibius qui, d’après Menge et Thorellest voisin de Clubiona, et non de Eridion, c’est à la fam. des Clubionidae qu’il fautrapporter ce terme et non à celle des Actinopodidae comme le fait Kaston” (Bonnet1956, p. 1164, footnote) [N.B. Sosibius Thorell, 1870 is an unjustified emendation ofSosybius]. This interpretation is fallacious because Eriodontidae was validly proposedin Berendt (1845) and the genus Eriodon Latreille, 1806 was explicitly included: “DieFamilie der Eriodontiden umfasst heute zwei Gattungen: Eriodon Latr. (MissuleneWalck.) und Selenops Perty; beide sind in Neuholland einheimish; die Urwelt bringteine dritte Gattung mit zwei Arten: ∗Sosybius major Koch & Ber. und ∗Sosybius minorKoch & Ber.” (Berendt 1845, p. 59; asterisks in original denote extinct taxa). Thus, theposition of Sosybius is irrelevant to the nomenclatural status of Eriodontidae. Thereis no doubt that Eriodon was being used in its correct sense in Berendt (1845) becausethe synonymy between Eriodon2 and Missulena is explicitly recognized (see quoteabove, in which the vernacular form “Missulene” is used). It follows that EriodontinaeAusserer, 1871 is a junior objective synonym of the coordinate name EriodontinaeC.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845, contrary to Bonnet’s (1956) treatment of them as different(homonymous) taxa.

Eriodontinae has been rejected as invalid due to synonymy of the type genus(Eriodon Latreille, 1806) with Missulena Walckenaer, 1805 (Kaston 1938; Bonnet 1956;Raven 1985, p. 143; Dunlop, Penney and Jekel 2012). The correct name for the familyis now Actinopodidae Simon, 1892. Because Actinopodinae was proposed by Simon(1892) as a replacement for Pachyloscelinae Simon, 1889 due to the synonymy ofPachyloscelis Lucas, 1835 with Actinopus Perty, 1833, it takes the date of the nameit replaces (1889) for the purposes of priority (Code, Article 40.2.1).

Although the genus Eriodon was included in Pachyloscelinae by Simon (1889)and Actinopodinae by Simon (1892), neither can be considered a replacement forthe coordinate name Eriodontinae, because Simon (1889, 1892) made no mention ofEriodontidae.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

1276 M.L.I. Judson

Family ARCHAEIDAE Koch & Berendt, 1854

Archäidae (nomen nudum); C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845, p. 56, 77 (as Archäiden).Unavailable name, based on generic nomen nudum.

Archaeidae (nomen nudum); C.L. Koch in Anonymous, 1846, pp. 871 (table), 877 (asArchäiden). Unavailable name, based on generic nomen nudum.

Archaeidae Koch & Berendt, 1854: 5 (table), 19; Menge in Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 7(table).

Type genus. Archaea Koch & Berendt, 1854.

All authors have attributed authorship of Archaeidae to Koch & Berendt, 1854, butthere have been a few exceptions in the case of the generic name Archaea. Sherborn(1923) listed Archäa Berendt, 1845 as a nomen nudum and noted that the spellingArchaea was used in the same work (Berendt 1845), implying that it too was a nomennudum. Strand (1928) considered Archäa Berendt, 1845 to be a nomen nudum andargued that Archaea had first been made available in “Leonhardt & Bronn, 1845”,citing it as “Archaea (C.L. Koch & Berendt) Leonhardt & Bronn, 1845”. The workconcerned is the Neues Jahrbuch abstract discussed in the introduction, cited hereas Anonymous (1846). Strand (1928) noted that a sufficient diagnosis of the genushad been given in Anonymous (1846, p. 877), based, according to him, on manuscriptdata (“M.S.-Angaben”) received from Koch & Berendt. In fact this diagnosis is takenalmost verbatim from information given on page 60 of Berendt (1845), which Strandoverlooked. Neave (1939) followed Sherborn (1923) in listing the genus under thespelling Archäa Berendt, 1845 (again mentioning Archaea as a variant), but treated itas having been validly proposed in Berendt (1845). The question is whether the diagno-sis provided in Berendt (1845) is sufficient to make Archaea and Archaeidae availablefrom that work.

The diagnosis in Berendt (1845) and Anonymous (1846) explicitly applies to thefamily Archaeidae, but since this was monotypic at the time, it applied equally tothe genus Archaea. Article 12.2.6 of the Code allows the combined description of anew genus and a single new species. Because only one species name, Archaea para-doxa, is mentioned, it might seem that the diagnosis could simultaneously make thefamily, genus and species available. This, however, is not the case because Berendt(1845) mentioned that three species were included in Archaea and the names of allthree (A. paradoxa, A. conica and A. laevigata) were listed in the summary sheet(“Übersichts-Blatte”) distributed with Berendt (1845) (Anonymous 1846). Thus theinformation provided in Berendt (1845) and Anonymous (1846) is not diagnostic forA. paradoxa, which is therefore a nomen nudum in both works. Because no valid specieswere included, it follows that Archaeidae and Archaea are also nomina nuda in thoseworks, only becoming available in Koch & Berendt (1854), where the species werefinally described. Authorship must be attributed to both authors (as has consistentlybeen done in the literature) because there is no statement to the contrary in that work(Code, Article 50.1).

Family ERESIDAE C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845

Erisidae [sic] C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845, p. 56 (table). Incorrect original spelling.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

Journal of Natural History 1277

Eresidae C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845: C.L. Koch in Anonymous, 1846, p. 872 (table);Koch & Berendt, 1854, pp. 6 (table), 86. Justified emendation.

Eresides C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845: C.L. Koch, 1851, p. 70.

Type genus. Eresus Walckenaer, 1805.

Remarks

Authorship of Eresidae has previously been attributed to C.L. Koch, 1850 or 1851(Kaston 1938; Bonnet 1956; Dunlop, Penney and Jekel 2012; Platnick 2012). Thisname appeared in the vernacular form “Eresides” in the fifth Heft of C.L. Koch’sÜbersicht des Arachnidensystems, which bears the date “1850” on its cover, but someauthors consider it to have been published in 1851. The 1851 date is probably cor-rect because the Übersicht was consistently advertised with the dates “1837–1851”in the lists of titles printed on the wrappers of other works available from thesame publisher (J.L. Lotzbeck), such as C.L. Koch (1854–1857), Herrich-Schäffer(1853) and L. Koch (1866–1867). The coordinate names Eresidae C.L. Koch inBerendt, 1845 (first emended by Koch in Anonymous (1846)) and Eresoidea C.L.Koch in Berendt, 1845 are currently in use and clearly have priority over otherattributions.

Family ULOBORIDAE Thorell, 1869

Mithracidae [sic] C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845, p. 56 (table); C.L. Koch in Anonymous,1846, p. 871 (table); Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 5 (table). Incorrect original spelling.Rejected name, based on generic homonym.

Mithraeidae C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845; Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 27. Justifiedemendation of Mithracidae. Rejected name, based on generic homonym.

Mithreidae [sic] Koch & Berendt, 1854: Menge in Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 7 (table).Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Uloborinae Thorell, 1869, pp. 64–65.

Type genus of Mithraeidae. Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834.

Type genus of Uloboridae. Uloborus Latreille, 1806.

The name Mithraeidae has been attributed to either C.L. Koch (1851) (e.g. Kaston1938), who used the vernacular form “Mithraides”, or to Koch & Berendt (1854) (e.g.Bonnet 1957; Penney & Selden 2006), who first Latinized the name. Mithraeidae C.L.Koch in Berendt, 1845 evidently has priority over both, but it is equally invalid, dueto homonymy of the type genus, Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834, with Mithras Hübner, 1819(Insecta: Lepidoptera) (Code, Article 39).

Because Thorell (1869) considered Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 to be a juniorsynonym of “Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1833”, which he placed in the new subfamilyUloborinae Thorell, 1869, the question arises as to whether the coordinate super-family name Uloboroidea Thorell, 1869 should take priority over Deinopoidea C.L.Koch, 1851. Article 40.2 of the Code stipulates that if a family group has been replacedbefore 1961 because of the synonymy of the type genus, the substitute name is to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

1278 M.L.I. Judson

maintained if it is in prevailing usage. Article 40.2.1 further stipulates that “A namemaintained by virtue of this Article retains its own author but takes the priority of thereplaced name, of which it is deemed to be the senior synonym.” Thus, if Uloborinaewas proposed as a replacement for Mithraeinae due to this synonymy, the coordinatename Uloboridae Thorell, 1869 [1845] would then have priority over DeinopoideaC.L. Koch, 1851. However, there are two reasons why such an interpretation wouldbe problematic.

Firstly, Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 is in fact a senior objective synonym ofHyptiotes Walckenaer, 1837 because “Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1833” does not exist.Walckenaer (1833, pp. 438, 440) mentioned a new genus, which he called Uptiotes,but because no available species were included, this is a nomen nudum (Bonnet1957). Uptiotes Walckenaer, 1833 was corrected to Hyptiotes by Agassiz & Erichson(1846), but since nomina nuda are not available names (Code, Glossary), they cannotbe emended. References to “Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1833” are therefore meaning-less. Uptiotes was first made available by Walckenaer (1837, p. 277) and emendedto Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1837 by Thorell (1869). Because Hyptiotes is in prevailingusage and attributed to Walckenaer, 1837, it is to be treated as a justified emendation(Code, Article 33.2.3.1), even though there is no evidence of an inadvertent error inWalckenaer (1837).

Secondly, Thorell (1869) did not state that Uloborinae was being introduced as areplacement name and he did not explain the reason for rejecting Mithraeidae. Becausehe was also aware that Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 was preoccupied by Mithras Hübner,1819 (Thorell 1869, p. 67, footnote 2), it could equally be argued that Mithraeidaewas rejected due to homonymy of its type genus. The Code does not have a provi-sion equivalent to that of 40.2.1 in the case of a family-group name replaced dueto homonymy of the type genus, hence the replacement name (Uloborinae) wouldnot take the priority of the original name (Mithraeinae) if this were the reason forthe change. The Code does not anticipate the eventuality of a family name beingreplaced because the type genus is simultaneously considered a junior synonymand a junior homonym, hence it is not clear whether article 40.2.1 would apply inthis case.

Because all recent authors (e.g. Griswold et al. 1998; Hausdorf 1999; Penney 2003;Wunderlich 2008; Miller et al. 2010) have accepted Coddington’s (1990) view thatDeinopoidea C.L. Koch, 1851 has priority over Uloboroidea Thorell, 1869, thereseems no point in trying to reverse this priority through application of Article 40.2.1.Even if such action were to be considered desirable in future, the ambiguity of thecurrent rules in respect to this case is such that an application would presumablyhave to be made to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature for aruling.

Order ACTINOTRICHIDA (Acari)Family SARCOPTIDAE C.L. Koch, 1845

Sarcoptides Sundevall, 1833, p. 38; C.L. Koch, 1842, p. 118.Sarcoptidae C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845, p. 56 (table); C.L. Koch in Anonymous, 1846,

p. 872 (table); Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 6 (table), 110; Murray, 1877, p. 291.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

Journal of Natural History 1279

Type genus. Sarcoptes Latreille, 1802.

Remarks

Although Sundevall (1833) proposed a family with the vernacular name Sarcoptides,most authors have attributed Sarcoptidae to Murray (1877) (Sidorchuk and Klimov2011), overlooking prior usage of Sarcoptidae in Berendt (1845), Anonymous (1846)and even Koch & Berendt (1854). As explained above, the recent assignment of thename Sarcoptidae to “Berendt, 1845” (i.e. Anonymous 1846) by Sidorchuk & Klimov(2011) is incorrect. It should be noted that Sidorchuk & Klimov (2011) make a similarerror when referring (in the synonymy of Sarcoptidae) to another work by “Berendt,1855”, which is a summary (Anonymous 1855) of Koch and Berendt (1854).

Because the family name has only infrequently been credited to Sundevall (1833),Sarcoptidae must be attributed to C.L. Koch in Berendt (1845) (Code, Article 11.7.2),and the same applies to coordinate names, of which Sarcoptoidea C.L. Koch inBerendt, 1845 and Sarcoptinae C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845 are currently in use(Klompen 1992).

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Pavel Klimov, Norman Platnick, Robert Raven, Ekaterina Sidorchuk and twoanonymous referees for helpful comments on the text, and to Volker Mahnert for linguisticadvice.

Notes

1 The publication date given on the title page of the journal is 1845, but it contains a referenceto a work by Faulconer and Cautley (1846) that was published in January 1846. In thecontents (p. VI) of the Jahrbücher, the year 1846 is indicated for Faulconer and Cautley(1846), although in the text (p. 461) this work is listed under the heading of books publishedin 1845.

2 Koch and Berendt (1854, p. 2) refer to “Eriodon Cuv.” in their introduction, but theauthority (Cuvier) is clearly a lapsus for Latreille.

References

Agassiz L, Erichson GF. 1846. Nomina systematica generum arachnidarum tam viventiumquam fossilium. IV + 14 pp. In: Agassiz L, editor. Nomenclator zoologicus, vol. 2,fasc. 9–10. Soloduri [Solothurn]: Jent & Gassmann. Available from: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18474713M/Nomenclator_zoologicus. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Anonymous [probably Bronn HG]. 1846. [Auszüg] G.C. Berendt: Die im Bernstein befindlichenorganischen Reste der Vorwelt [ . . . ] I. Band, 1. Abth.: der Bernstein und die in ihmbefindlichen Pflanzen-Reste der Vorwelt, bearbeitet von H R. Göppert und G. C. Berendt[ . . . ]. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde,13(1845):864–879. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZQ0RAAAAIAAJ.(Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Anonymous [probably Bronn HG]. 1855. [Auszüg] G.C. Berendt: die im Bernstein befindlichenorganischen Reste der Vorwelt, gesammelt, in Verbindung mit Mehrer bearbeitet und her-ausgegeben (Berlin in fol.). I. Bnd., 2. Abtheil. Crustaceen, Myriapoden, Arachniden undApteren, bearbeit von C. L. Koch und G. C. Berendt. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

1280 M.L.I. Judson

Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, 23:119–125. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=3A8FAAAAQAAJ. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Berendt GC. 1845. Die organischen Bernstein-Einschlusse im Allgemein. In: BerendtGC, editor. Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt gesam-melt in Verbindung mit Mehreren bearbeitet un herausgegeben, Vol. 1, part I.Berlin: Nicholaischen Buchhandlung. p. 41–60. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=mBkGKe4WegAC. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Bonnet P. 1956. Bibliographica araneorum. Tome II (2me partie: C–F). Toulouse: Douladoure.p. 919–1925.

Bonnet P. 1957. Bibliographica araneorum. Tome II (3me partie: G–M). Toulouse: Douladoure.p. 1927–3026.

Bronn HG. 1856. Fünfte Period. Molassen-Gebirge. In: Bronn HG, Römer F, edi-tors. H.G. Bronn’s Lethaea geognostica. 3rd ed. Band 3, Theil 6. Stuttgart, E.Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung. 1130 p. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=NsoQAAAAIAAJ. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Bronn HG, Göppert HR, von Meyer R. 1855. Handbuch einer Geschichte der Natur.Band 3, Abtheilung 2, Theil III–IV. In: Bischoff GW, Blum JR, Bronn HG,von Leonhard KC, Leuckart FS, Voigt FS, editors. Naturgeschichte der dreiReiche. Band 15. E. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung. 1106 p. Availablefrom: http://books.google.com/books?id=BEBGAAAAYAAJ and http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k981392. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Coddington JA 1990. Ontogeny and homology in the male palpus of orb weaving spiders andtheir relatives, with comments on phylogeny (Araneoclada: Araneoidea, Deinopoidea).Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 496:1–52. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10088/5479. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Dunlop JA. 2006. Baltic amber harvestman types (Arachnida: Opiliones: Eupnoi and Dyspnoi).Fossil Record. 9:167–182.

Dunlop JA. 2007. Paleontology. In: Pinto-da-Rocha R, Machado G, Giribet G, editors.Harvestmen: the biology of Opiliones. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard UniversityPress. p. 247–265.

Dunlop JA, Penney D, Dalüge N, Jäger P, McNeil A, Bradley RS, Withers PJ, Prezios,RF. 2011. Computed tomography recovers data from historical amber: an example fromhuntsman spiders. Naturwissenschaften. 98:519–527.

Dunlop JA, Penney D, Jekel D. 2012. A summary list of fossil spiders and their rel-atives. In: Platnick NI, editor. The world spider catalog, version 12.5. New York:American Museum of Natural History. Available from: http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/Fossils_12.5.pdf. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Evenhuis NL. 1997. Literatura taxonomica dipterorum (1758–1930). 2 vol. Leiden: BackhuisPublishers. vii + 871 pp.

Faulconer H, Cautley T. 1846. Fauna antiqua Sivalensis, being the Fossil Zoology of theSewalik-Hills in the North of India. Part I. London: Smith, Elder &co. p. 1–64. Availablefrom: http://books.google.com/books?id=50wJAAAAIAAJ. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Griswold CE, Coddington JA, Hormiga G, Scharff N. 1998. Phylogeny of the orb-web buildingspiders (Araneae, Orbiculariae: Deinopoidea, Araneoidea). Zool J Linnean Soc. 123:1–99.

Harms D, Dunlop JA. 2009. A revision of the fossil pirate spiders (Arachnida: Araneae:Mimetidae). Palaeontology. 52:779–802.

Hausdorf B. (1999) Molecular phylogeny of araneomorph spiders. J Evol Biol. 12:980–985.Herrich-Schäffer GAW. 1853. Die wanzenartigen Insecten, getreu nach der natur abge-

bildet und beschrieben. 9 (7–9). Nürnburg: J.L. Lotzbeck. Available from: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44186. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999. International Code of ZoologicalNomenclature. 4th ed. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Availablefrom: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

Journal of Natural History 1281

Kaston BJ. 1938. Family names in the order Araneae. Am Midl Nat. 19:638–646.Klompen, JSH. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships in the mite family Sarcoptidae (Acari:

Astigmata). Misc Pub Mus Zool Univ Mich. 80:i–v, 1–54. Available from: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56424/1/MP180.pdf. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Koch CL. 1842. Übersicht des Arachnidensystems. 3(3):73–131, pls. IX–XIII. Nürnburg: C.H.Zeh’sche Buchhandlung. Available from: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87778and http://books.google.com/books?id=Qok-AAAAcAAJ. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Koch CL. 1851 [1850]. Übersicht des Arachnidensystems. 5:1–104. Nürnburg: VerlagJ.L. Lotzbeck. Available from: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87778. (Accessed:30 January 2012).

Koch CL. 1854–1857. Die Pflanzenläuse Aphiden. Nürnberg: Verlag J.L. Lotzbeck. p. 1–335,pls I–LIII. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=g5c-AAAAcAAJ.

Koch CL, Berendt GC. 1854. Die im Bernstein befindlichen Crustaceen, Myriapoden,Arachniden und Apteren der Vorwelt. [With foreword and notes by Menge, A], In:Berendt GC, editor. Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt gesam-melt in Verbindung mit Mehreren bearbeitet und herausgegeben. Vol. 1, part II. Berlin:Nicolaischen Buchhandlung. p. I–IV, 1–124, pls I–XVII Available from: http://books.google.fr/books?id=mBkGKe4WegAC. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Koch, L. 1866–1867. Die Familie der Drassiden. Drassidae Sund. Verlag J.L. Lotzbeck. 352 p.,XII pls [Heft 1–6 (p. 1–304) published 1866; Heft 7 (p. 305–352) published 1867; title oncover – “Die Arachniden-Familie der Drassiden” – differs from that on title page].

Marusik YB, Penney, D. 2005. A survey of Baltic amber Theridiidae (Araneae) inclu-sions, with descriptions of six new species. Arthropoda selecta. Special issue 1[2004]:201–218. Available from: http://www.european-arachnology.org/proceedings/21th/201_218_Marusik_Penney.pdf. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Miller JA, Carmichael A, Ramírez MJ, Spagna JC, Haddad CR, Rezác M, Johannesen J,Král J, Wang X-P, Griswold CE. 2010. Phylogeny of entelegyne spiders: Affinities of thefamily Penestomidae (new rank), generic phylogeny of Eresidae, and asymmetric rates ofchange in spinning organ evolution (Araneae, Araneoidea, Entelegynae). Mol PhylogenetEvol. 55:786–804.

Murray A. 1877. Economic entomology. Vol. I. Aptera. South Kensington Museum ScienceHandbooks. London: Chapman & Hall. xxiii + 433 p.

Neave SA. 1939. Nomenclator zoologicus. Vol. I A–C. London: Zoological Society of London.xiv + 957 pp.

Penney D. 2003. A new deinopoid spider from Cretaceous Lebanese amber. Acta PalaeontolPolon. 48:569–574. Available from: http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app48/app48-569.pdf. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Penney D, Selden PA. 2006. Assembling the tree of life – phylogeny of spiders: areview of the strictly fossil spider families. Acta Zool Bulg. Suppl. 1:25–39. Availa-ble from: http://www.european-arachnology.org/proceedings/22nd/04_Penney_Selden.pdf.(Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Pictet FJ. 1854. Traité de paléontologie: ou histoire naturelle des animaux fossiles consid-érés dans leurs rapports zoologiques et géologiques. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Paris: J.B. Baillière.727 p. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=dH1CAAAAcAAJ. (Accessed:30 January 2012).

Platnick NI. 2012. The world spider catalog, version 12.5. New York: American Museumof Natural History. Available from: http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog. DOI:10.5531/db.iz.0001. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Raven RJ. 1985. The spider infraorder Mygalomorphae (Araneae): cladistics and systemat-ics. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 182:1–180. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2246/955.(Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Sherborn CD. 1923. Index Animalium. Sectio secunda. Part III. Index Anus-Bail. London:British Museum. p. 385–640. Available from: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013

1282 M.L.I. Judson

63161. Searchable from: http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/indexanimalium/Index.cfm. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Sidorchuk EA, Klimov PB. 2011. Redescription of the mite Glaesacarus rhombeus (Koch &Berendt, 1854) from Baltic amber (Upper Eocene): evidence for female-controlled mating.J Syst Palaeontol. 9:183–196.

Simon E. 1889. Voyage de M. E. Simon au Venezuela (Décembre 1887–Avril 1888). 4e Mémoire.Arachnides. Ann Soc Entomol France. 9(6):169–220, pl. 1–3.

Simon E. 1892. Histoire naturelle des araignées. 2nd ed. Vol. 1, fasc. 1. Paris: Libraireencyclopédique de Roret, vii + 256 p.

Strand E. 1928. Die arachnologischen Gattungsnamen † Archaea und Argyope. EntomolNachrichtsblatt. 2:46.

Sundevall CJ. 1833. Conspectus arachnidum. Londini [Lund]: C. F. Berling, 39 p.Thorell T. 1869–1870. On European spiders. Part I. Review of the European genera of spiders,

preceded by some observations on zoological nomenclature. Nova Acta Regiæ Societasscientiarum Upsaliensis, (3) 7(1) [1869]: I–XXIV, 1–108; (2) [1870]:109–242. Available from:http://books.google.com/books?id=mH5FAAAAcAAJ. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Ubick D, Dunlop JA. 2005. On the placement of the Baltic amber harvestman Gonyleptesnemastomoides Koch & Berendt, 1854, with notes on the phylogeny of Cladonychiidae(Opiliones, Laniatores, Travunioidea). Mitteilungen aus der Museum für Naturkunde inBerlin (geowissenschaftliche Reihe). 8:75–82.

Walckenaer CA. 1833. Mémoire sur une nouvelle classification des Aranéïdes. Ann SocEntomol France. 2:414–446. Available from: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100631. (Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Walckenaer CA. 1837. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Aptères. Paris: Libraire encyclopédique deRoret, Tome 1: vi + 682 p. Available from: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6102566j.(Accessed: 30 January 2012).

Wunderlich J. 2008. On extant and fossil spiders (Araneae) or the RTA-clade in EoceneEuropean ambers of the families Borboropactidae, Corinnidae, Selenopidae, Sparassidae,Trochanteriidae, Zoridae s.l., and of the superfamily Lycosoidea. In: Wunderlich J,editor. Fossil and extant spiders (Araneae). Hirschberg: Beitraege zur Araneologie, 5.J. Wunderlich. p. 470–523.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

47 3

0 A

pril

2013